A Soiled Victory: Who sold out America's black farmers?

Opinion Journal ^ | 08/15/2002 | COLLIN LEVEY

[Pokey78]

One of the largest civil-rights settlements in history has some very strange groups going for a roll in the hay.

The case involves black farmers who sued for what they said was a long pattern of discrimination by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Back in 1999, they won a big settlement. But when all the money didn't come through, they found themselves in the awkward position of realizing they'd been hog-tied. Now they find themselves at odds with the trial lawyer who helped bring the case, the Congressional Black Caucus, which actively hindered their cause two years ago, and the USDA itself, which under Clinton-appointed Secretary Dan Glickman had donned sackcloth and ashes and made a big show of contrition (not to mention dough) to a key Democratic constituency.

[Pokey78]

Ping.

[TopQuark]

Thanks, Pokey --- a good find.

[First_Salute]

The "practice" of lawyers, such that they are supremely the artists of puffery and profiteering, is as low at least as the corporate officers now in trouble for said same acts.

[isthisnickcool]

The best lawyer you can have in this country is the one you never have to hire.

[Louie the Lowlife]

If you look at the record of class action suits, you will often see a large number of "clients" getting nominal settlements. For those of you in the teachers' union, that means they didn't get very much money. But since the lawyers get a third or even half of the total, they walk away with real money.
If you get a class action notice, it will usually tell you your maximum expected award is in the tens to hundreds of dollars. If so, go ahead and OPT OUT of the class. That way you won't get the pittance, but the lawyer won't either. If enough people do the same, the lawyers will feel it.

[x]

Scandalous. And there doesn't seem to be any check or control on these lawyers. Or penalty for frivolous suits. How legitimate was the original case?

[Arkinsaw]

As cynical as the lawyers are, though, perhaps the worst has come from the Congressional Black Caucus. Shortly after the settlement was filed, when two Republican congressmen, J.C. Watts of Oklahoma and Jay Dickey of Arkansas, sponsored a bill to help the farmers, it was the Black Caucus that shot it down. The Washington Times reported that the caucus's members "were explicit" in saying they opposed because its sponsor was Mr. Dickey, "who they said was merely trying to protect himself in the face of a tough Democratic election challenge." (Mr. Dickey lost.) The Democrats' move was so egregious that the black farmers came out with a statement supporting George W. Bush.

This one is really bothersome. Jay Dickey had obtained quite a bit of funds to assist the incredibly poor southeast Arkansas area. The Democratic party and Bill Clinton "targeted" Dickey because of Dickey's vote for impeachment and pulled out all the stops to defeat him. All of those funds have pretty much dried up for southeast Arkansas since Dickey's defeat. I'm guessing that the Black Caucus had marching orders from the Party to not give Dickey any breaks even though it would hurt the farmers. An incredible shame for Southeast Arkansas.

This whole episode reminds me of what happened to the Indian "Trust" Funds and how all their money just up and disappeared.

[Arkinsaw]

Scandalous. And there doesn't seem to be any check or control on these lawyers. Or penalty for frivolous suits. How legitimate was the original case?

The case was a good one I think. These guys had a tough row to hoe. But it wasn't the lawyers. Jay Dickey was "targeted" for his impeachment vote. His vote was particularly galling since he was from Clinton's home state. The national party "targeted" him and I'm afraid that these farmers got in the way.

[ozzymandus]

Speaking as a white farmer, I'm not shedding any tears for the unfortunates who didn't get all their loans forgiven and a $50,000 handout.

[jackliberty]

How legitimate was the original case?

The last article I read about this pointed out what a total sham the suit was. But don't blame the lawyers.

I can't find the article and probably pitched it; but the gist of it was that the government (you know who and his cronies) masterminded the whole thing. People who had never set a foot on a farm were encouraged to sue, claiming they were going to farm but... When USDA people showed that black and white farmers with similar qualifications were granted or not granted loans equally, higher ups in our first black president's castle changed the rules so that the allegation of wrong-doing was proof enough. It was a "Democrats are good" vote getting scheme from the get go.

I'm glad to see there are some corrections being made; although $640 million paid to date is part of Clinton's legacy.

As for the 50% of claimants being denied, they probably tripped themselves up when asked, "What do you do with a hoe?"

[Arkinsaw]

The last article I read about this pointed out what a total sham the suit was.

I'm actually more inclined to believe Jay Dickey and J.C. Watts than a press article on this one. It seems as if both the press and the Democrats are on the same page on this one. Imagine that.

[goodieD]

Who is selling minorities down the river? Democrats and their lawyers. "You can't make it without a handout" "You aren't smart enough to get into colleges without us dumbing down the entrance requirements." The left are the biggest plantation owners in the world.

[maranatha]

The whole thing was a rip-off from start to finish beginning with the claims of discrimination. Never happened. Those counties offices making the loans did not discriminate against blacks.

[stylin19a]

You are right on the mark. This one was like an empty city bus being in an accidnet. By the time the police get there, there are 150 people on the bus, claiming to be injured.

This whole thing stunk from the git-go and no-one stood up and said "hey...this is wrong". Not the RATs, not the Rhinos, not the Repubs.

I'm STILL waiting for the media to start asking our elected officials "Senator, do you support reparations for slavery?"

[jackliberty]

I'm actually more inclined to believe Jay Dickey and J.C. Watts than a press article on this one.

It isn't necessarily an either/or situation.

I don't know anything (other than tonight's thread) about Jay Dickey but I have faith in J.C.Watt's truthfulness. They stepped in to help a group they thought needed help. I'll bet that whether the entire group (19,000) deserved help or not wasn't in the reports Watts and Dickey were getting. The case sounded real bad for awhile.

The key is the last sentence in the 2nd paragraph, "Now they find themselves at odds with the trial lawyer who helped bring the case, the Congressional Black Caucus, which actively hindered their cause two years ago, and the USDA itself, which under Clinton-appointed Secretary Dan Glickman had donned sackcloth and ashes and made a big show of contrition (not to mention dough) to a key Democratic constituency." IMHO, Glickman didn't bring sackcloth and ashes; he brought snake oil.

As for the lawyers, who this article is trying to blame, they received $15 million on an expected $1.2 billion settlement. That's a little over 1%, practically pro bono for lawyers. What percentage did the tobacco lawyers get?

[Balding_Eagle]

Speaking as a white farmer, I'm not shedding any tears for the unfortunates who didn't get all their loans forgiven and a $50,000 handout.

Good point. It's easy to lose sight of the real issue here. I'm with you on this.

[mhking]

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

[headsonpikes]

"...$15 million...[is] practically pro bono for lawyers..."

Gives one pause....;^)